Ashok Sawaria vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010143532026
+ LPA 241/2026
ASHOK SAWARIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Kr. Gaur, Advocate.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Randhir Kumar and Ms. Chelci
Chahar, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 22850/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 22849/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
3. Having heard learned Counsel representing the Parties and perused
the averments made in the instant Application, the Application is allowed
and delay of 37 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4. The Application stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 1 of 6

LPA 241/2026
5. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the
order dated 12.01.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed in W.P.(C)
11104/2020 (“ Writ Petition ”), instituted by the Appellant, whereby the
Writ Petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3 under the
Other Backward Class (“ OBC ”) quota to the post of Assistant Education
Officer (General) (“ Post ”), as well as her continuance with Respondent Nos.
1 and 2, came to be dismissed.
6. Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ MCD ”),
issued an advertisement for the Post, and the selection process was
conducted through the Union Public Service Commission (“ UPSC ”). Vide
communication dated 22.05.2009, the UPSC recommended six candidates
for appointment to the Post, including Respondent No. 3. The Appellant was
not amongst the candidates so recommended.
7. The MCD, thereafter, issued an offer of appointment dated
17.07.2009 (“ Offer of Appointment ”) in favour of Respondent No. 3. The
said Offer of Appointment was accepted by Respondent No. 3, and the
verification conducted by the Police and the Vigilance Department of the
MCD did not disclose any adverse record against her. The OBC/Domicile
Certificate was also verified and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate vide communications dated 24.09.2009 and 16.11.2009.
8. Several complaints were lodged alleging that Respondent No. 3 had
secured appointment to the Post based on a fraudulently obtained OBC
Certificate. Upon investigation and inquiry, the said complaints were closed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 2 of 6

9. In December 2020, the Appellant instituted the Writ Petition alleging
that Respondent No. 3 had obtained the OBC Certificate in contravention of
the applicable rules and instructions governing the issuance of OBC
certificates to sons and daughters of persons of origin of the State of Delhi
for the purposes of reservation in employment under the Government of
NCT of Delhi/Central Government. It was further alleged that Respondent
No. 3 was appointed by the MCD to the Post on the basis of the said OBC
Certificate, despite the fact that her parents, along with their family,
including Respondent No. 3, are permanent residents of Village Tihara
Khurd, Sonepat, Haryana, and belong to the Jat community. The Writ
Petition further asserted that the Jat community has not been notified as an
OBC in Haryana and, therefore, no benefit under the OBC quota is available
to members of the said community for reservation in employment in
Haryana. The Appellant also alleged that the father of Respondent No. 3 had
never migrated from Sonepat, Haryana to Delhi, and that her mother was
appointed as a Primary Teacher with the MCD in the General Category,
having furnished her permanent address as Sonepat, Haryana.
10. The Appellant further alleged that Respondent No. 3 had obtained all
her educational qualifications from institutions situated in Sonepat/Rohtak,
Haryana, which, according to the Appellant, demonstrated that she was a
person of origin of the State of Haryana, where the Jat community has not
been notified for reservation in employment. On this basis, it was contended
that the OBC Certificate had been wrongly issued in favour of Respondent
No. 3. The Writ Petition accordingly sought a declaration that the
appointment of Respondent No. 3 under the OBC quota, as well as her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 3 of 6

continuance with the MCD while holding the post of Deputy Director of
Education (Admin.), was illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the
applicable rules, since the OBC Certificate had allegedly been wrongly
issued to Respondent No. 3 notwithstanding that she was a resident of
Haryana, had been brought up there, and had obtained all her educational
qualifications in the State of Haryana.
11. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge, after considering
the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant, observed that the caste
status of Respondent No. 3 had been verified on multiple occasions by the
competent authorities and that, upon confirmation of the genuineness
thereof, her appointment to the Post was confirmed. The learned Single
Judge further observed that, in the absence of any material demonstrating
perversity, mala fide or violation of statutory provisions in the decision-
making process, no justification existed for interfering with the factual
determination arrived at based on repeated verification processes.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
12. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and have
carefully perused the material placed on record.
13. The allegation advanced by the Appellant that the appointment of
Respondent No. 3 with the MCD was founded upon an OBC Certificate
obtained by fraud is based on conjectures and is unsupported by any cogent
material. The Appellant also lacks the requisite locus to assail the
appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the Post, as he was neither a candidate
recommended by the UPSC for the Post nor a public-spirited person
pursuing the matter in public interest.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 4 of 6

14. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge,
vide order dated 04.02.2021, directed the Appellant to file an affidavit
disclosing his vocation and indicating whether he had made any complaint
to the authorities in relation to the subject matter of the Writ Petition.
Pursuant thereto, the Appellant filed an affidavit dated 04.03.2021
(“ Affidavit ”), stating that any citizen may maintain a writ of quo warranto
without demonstrating any special or personal interest, the relevant inquiry
being whether the person holding the office is authorised in law to hold the
same. As regards his vocation, the Appellant stated in the Affidavit that he
was an entrepreneur and was also engaged in social activities. The Affidavit
further disclosed that the Appellant had not made any complaint to any
authority concerning the subject matter of the Writ Petition.
15. It is the case of the MCD that the Offer of Appointment issued to
Respondent No. 3 was provisional and subject to verification of the OBC
Certificate. Pursuant to the Offer of Appointment, which was duly accepted
by Respondent No. 3, the requisite verification of her character and
antecedents was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special
Branch, Delhi Police. Further, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, North-West
District, Delhi, also verified the OBC Certificate of Respondent No. 3. The
Vigilance Department of the MCD found that no police case or adverse
police record existed against Respondent No. 3 as on 07.09.2009. The MCD
has also submitted that, pursuant to several complaints lodged against
Respondent No. 3, her OBC Certificate was again verified by the Vigilance
Department of the MCD, and upon such verification, the said complaints
were closed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 5 of 6

16. In view of the aforesaid, the veracity of the OBC Certificate issued in
favour of Respondent No. 3 stood examined by the MCD through multiple
rounds of verification, pursuant to which it was concluded that no foul play
was attributable to Respondent No. 3.
17. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, in the Impugned Order,
observed that there was no perversity, mala fide or violation of any statutory
provision in the decision-making process, particularly in view of the
inquiries conducted by the MCD as well as the Delhi Police, which found
the OBC Certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 to be genuine and
valid.
18. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, and having
regard to the locus of the Appellant, we are of the considered view that the
learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and declined to
interfere with the factual determination arrived at on the basis of the
repeated verification processes undertaken by the MCD.
19. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Appellant has not been able
to make out any case to interfere with the findings returned by the learned
Single Judge in the Impugned Order. Consequently, the present Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
AUGUST 20, 2026/sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21
LPA 241/2026 Page 6 of 6